I didn't know dear old Pope Michael I had a successor. I know he had passed away a couple years ago, but I mistakenly thought that would be the end of his peculiar movement.
As a former Kansas who lived next to the man, his whole story is fascinating. Even more fascinating is the Flipino drop out who started his own sede "traditionalist" church who then became a bishop in the "traditional Catholic-Anglicanism" of the Catholic Charismatic Church, who then became a follower of Pope Michael before becoming Pope Michael II. Oh, he's married and has a kid, too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogelio_del_Rosario_Martinez
That's wild. My friends and I used to joke about "the Pope in Kansas City." Unfortunately, "the Pope in San Jose del Monte" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
My favourite among the US "Popes" was the late Pius XIII, aka Lucien Pulvermacher. He used to issue encyclicals from the wilds of Montana. He had a particular obsession about the sinfulness of wasting money on useless animals. But he's been dead for years, so your hairy friends are safe.
This is not going to end well. In fact, it has already ended. These sisters have not only gotten bad advice, they are stupid.
Can. 1256 Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of goods belongs to that juridic person which has acquired them legitimately.
Can. 1257 §1. All temporal goods which belong to the universal Church, the Apostolic See, or other public juridic persons in the Church are ecclesiastical goods and are governed by the following canons and their own statutes.
Can. 1273 By virtue of his primacy of governance, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods.
This didn't happen overnight and shows a deep dysfunction in this community. As they say, the habit doesn't make the monk.
But if Pope Francis is right and different religions are just different "grammars" by which we all try to seek God, then the nuns going off and doing their own thing is just fine!
I guess I am confused as to what you mean by things "not ending well" then? Do you mean that the nuns will end up excommunicated, and if so, that this will endanger their souls? That is how I interpreted it, but if being Catholic is to a certain degree optional, then I don't see how that ends badly for them. There are Anglican Carmelite nuns, and no one goes around worrying about their immortal souls.
I think you’re over reading Pope Francis’ Singapore comments. That different religions are “paths to God” seems to come close to a statement of fact. The historical religions mentioned by Pope Francis (Sikhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity) all acknowledge a singular, supernatural, transcendent, highest being, that which we might call God. Adherents of those religions thus can arrive at God.
This seems much like saying “philosophy is a path to God.” Human reason alone can get you to God, but such knowledge alone isn’t salvific necessarily (James 2:19). Something similar can be said about the historical religions. The statement, “all religions are paths to salvation” would be more concerning.
I guess the question is to what extent Texas courts will give weight to those articles of canon law. I suspect that if ever gets to that stage, the court may look unfavorably on a taking by the diocese.
I suspect you are right. Court systems frequently take religious rules into account when making decisions in family/divorce court, or deciphering the understanding that people entering into a contract would have had, but they are not going to reject US property laws in favor of canon law.
The diocese has no authority to take the property of the monastery and I don't believe they have ever intended to. The courts tend to give weight to canon law and the constitutions of the monastery in regards to property, etc. I know of one bishop that tried to acquire the property of a monastery that was closing and the lawyer presented the Nuns constitution and that was it. The bishop didn't have a change.
The issue here isn't the civil law, it's juridical law. Not only are these nuns disobedient beyond understanding they have caused scandal. The Holy See has every right to suppress the monastery. Of course, it won't matter to these nuns.
I've known of cases in which a member of a religious community entered into a civil contract that was in direct violation of canon law (acting without the proper authority), and the community was stuck with it, because as far as the civil law was concerned, everything was above board.
I'm really confused. Why would two people who presumably are on the more permissive side of the current discussions of faith side with the Sisters, who are enlisting the help of those who have decidedly less permissive views of how the Church should operate (the Society)? Is this just a spite thing? "The Pope won't agree with me, so I'll back anyone challenging the Pope, even if they totally disagree with me?"
Abuser priests celebrating “Mass” for the sisters and others living at Gozaga suggest a gambit by the lavender mafia to co-opt traditionalist impulses.
There are a couple that are big local names. And the Doskocil Family Foundation has been a supporter of diocesan needs and projects, including large projects for the only diocesan high school.
The bootleggers and the teetotallers teamed up during prohibition, to try to keep those laws on the books.
Aside from the family connections, these particular Jesuits sound like they would very much dislike bishop Olsen, as he has strong conservative tendencies. The monastery distrusts him because he has been overbearing and unjust to them (their own sins and errors in judgement notwithstanding).
I commented months ago on the Pillar's coverage of this crazy story and asked why the wider Carmelite community across the USA had apparently not been invited to help sort out this mess.
On the basic Catholic principle of subsidiary , if a local community cannot help itself out of trouble, the Regional and then the National Superiors of that Order should lovingly intervene ASAP. They are the ones who, in theory, should best understand the charism of their Order. The Bishop should stand back.... Unless no one else intervenes.
But sadly things have spun so badly out of control that any outcome will probably reflect badly on the wider Church and likely damage vocations. The Pillar have done an amazing job of stuffing as many bizarre accusations as imaginable into one story.
Carmelite monasteries are autonomous by their very nature. While Francis has done some things to federate them -- and that comes into play in this story -- this is not like a rogue house of Franciscans, which belongs to a province and then an order. Monasteries of Carmelite nuns talk to each other, but there isn't (or hasn't been until Francis' changes) a hierarchy in the way that's true of many other religious.
My point about subsidiary still applies. The first intervention should come from fellow Carmelites who understand the spirituality of their order. Just as you would hope that siblings would be the first to notice and help a brother with a drink problem. A monastery may be autononomous to some extent, but it is not freelance.
I refer to my reply to Bridget below on the legal oddity of Arlington. Seemingly you can have two "Carmelite" monasteries in the same State with different Constitutions and different authority structures above them. Not being a canon lawyer, this possibility had never occurred to me. No wonder that the other Carmelites, operatoring under the Semi-Province of St Terese, seem to have been reluctant to offer fraternal assistance to a monastery for which they had no judicial responsibility.
> the Regional and then the National Superiors of that Order should lovingly intervene ASAP.
That's not how it works for the type of constitutions this specific monastery has. It's necessary not only to understand the charism of the Order but also the mechanics of the rule. In any case you can see that they (the Arlington Carmel) would have and currently do reject any attempt at visitation.
> any outcome will probably reflect badly on the wider Church and likely damage vocations.
Women who are called to the Carmel in Fairfield will not care what rebels in Texas are doing (except to the extent that we all need to pray for them because it's very sad.)
Unfortunately it is a very obvious question for anyone called to a Carmelite vocation anywhere. What happens if the apparently very holy Superior of the convent I am entering goes off the rails at some later date?
Thanks for pointing out the oddity of the Arlington situation. After more digging, I think I may understand it better.
The Carmelites in Arlington may be autonomous to a limited extent, but they are plainly cannot be free floating. The following article explains why, for complex historical reasons, they are under the authority of the local bishop....but their immediate superior is the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome. This looks like the worst of all possible worlds. The Bishop is not a Carmelite and probably has limited knowledge of what goes on in a monastery and the Dicastery is 5,000 miles away.
Another community of Discalced Carmelite Nuns in Texas are under the authority of the Semi-Province of St Terese. And that is part of the Province of St Terese. And the Provincial is Father Luis Joaquin Castenada. So two "Carmelite" monasteries in the same state have two different authority structures.
None of these "Provincial" structures seem to have been mentioned in the various reports, probably as they have no judicial authority over the Arlington community. What is meant by "authority"? I am guessing that Father Luis or a subordinate would, as an extreme measure, have power to take over a badly disordered monastery and close or reform it. But, unsurprisingly, no one in the Province seems to have wanted to get involved in this unholy Arlington mess for which they have no responsibility.
This stuff is making my head explode as I am not a lawyer. It is just, as a lifelong Catholic in a massively hierarchical religion, it used to be obvious that everyone, except the Holy Father, was answerable to someone for gross misbehaviour. Even if it was agony on stilts to boot him or her . Even Uncle Ted McCarrick eventually got booted.
As others have said, there are no regional or national superiors when it comes to Carmelite nuns. That being said, I completely agree that a respected Carmelite figure (or several) should have been called in at the very beginning of this fiasco to mediate between the nuns and the bishop. However, Olsen decided that, instead of stepping back and allowing such a mediation to take place, the thing to do was to phone Rome and get himself put in charge of the whole thing, which just escalated things into a death spiral.
This will get resolved when the questionable Bishop who set off this whole mess (and a few others) leaves office, and not before. Meanwhile, I'm not concerned about the involvement of some Jesuit in an edgy situation, because that's what Jesuits do. (I realize the man in this case is not an actual Jesuit, but as the University he manages is Jesuit, he's Jesuit by association.)
Referring to Desmond Tutu as an "archbishop" out-and-out in an unqualified sense seems to be an interesting choice stylistically in light of Apostolicae Curae...
This shows that when you stray from the Catholic Church and become schismatic, you do so completely, to the point that you ally with even people with heretical beliefs, like the ones from Gonzaga. Reminds me of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in St. Louis where a group of Polish Catholics, an ethnic group known for sticking to Catholic traditions even when nearly the rest of Catholics in the U.S. lost theirs, decided to remove their parish from diocesan jurisdiction and won their case in court. The only Polish priest they could find who would participate in their schism was one who was thrown out of seminary in Poland for homosexuality and was ordained by a liberal bishop in Jefferson City, Missouri. He came in, started inviting drag queens and all sorts of wacky stuff and the parish was a lot worse than if it had just obeyed the bishop. That is how the devil gets us and people like Archbishop Vigano: it starts out with a legitimate complaint and maybe even injustice from the Church, but disobedience for legitimate authority leads to worsening schism and will lead to perdition for the sisters and all those actively supporting them if they do not repent. They should look at the good example of Father Frank Phillips, wonderful founder of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, one of the most amazingly wonderful religious orders in the world. He was falsely accused by Cardinal Cupich of sexual crimes which were completely proven wrong by an investigation of the Resurrectionist order he was still a member of. He therefore has no canonical restrictions anywhere in the world except in the Archdiocese of Chicago, from the arguably most vindictive and unjust bishop in the world, Cardinal Cupich. For the good of the society he founded, which run 2 thriving parishes in Chicago and one in Sprigfield, Illinois, Father Phillips quietly resigned from leading it and the Canons elected a new leader, who has to now deal with arrogant Cupich who would love to shut the Canons down if they were not so popular in Chicago, including among prominent Church donors, but Cupich cannot trick them into disobedience so he
can have his wish of destroying them. Obedience even to bad bishops in legitimate matters is the only choice for a Catholic.
Yes. The enemy proposes a sort of "trolley problem": *if you don't disobey, terrible things will happen! Look at all these things tied to the "what if I don't disobey" track! They will be run over by a freight train with no brakes!* The only winning move is not to play the trolley problem game; it is a temptation to anxiety, stop speculating about the future, instead call a temptation a temptation and reject it and choose to trust God. (We do need to count the cost of following God, as Jesus advises in the Gospels somewhere, in order not to build "The Four Story Mistake" or engage with an army when one should offer terms instead. But this is simple to estimate! The cost is EVERYTHING. This also is in the Gospels: treasure in field, pearl of great price.)
The enemy likes to twist the knife by leading us to become a grotesque caricature of ourselves, and the values we are willing to be disobedient in order to protect get twisted into absurd contradictions.
My favourite example is the Mariavite movement in Poland. They broke away from Rome around 1906 and, to start with, an outsider might have been baffled at their schism. They had a huge devotion to Our Lady and the Blessed Sacrament, they had very traditional looking priests and nuns. Why were they not Catholic? The Gnostic undercurrents soon emerged with "mystic marriages" between priests and nuns. And definitely not mystic pregnancies. They ended up as one of the Old Catholic Churches.
And their leader, Jan Kowalski, ended up dying at Dachau. Allegedly he wrote to Hitler advising him to embrace Mariavitism or lose the war. And the local Gestapo came calling.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope Michael II got involved.
I didn't know dear old Pope Michael I had a successor. I know he had passed away a couple years ago, but I mistakenly thought that would be the end of his peculiar movement.
As a former Kansas who lived next to the man, his whole story is fascinating. Even more fascinating is the Flipino drop out who started his own sede "traditionalist" church who then became a bishop in the "traditional Catholic-Anglicanism" of the Catholic Charismatic Church, who then became a follower of Pope Michael before becoming Pope Michael II. Oh, he's married and has a kid, too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogelio_del_Rosario_Martinez
That's wild. My friends and I used to joke about "the Pope in Kansas City." Unfortunately, "the Pope in San Jose del Monte" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
My favourite among the US "Popes" was the late Pius XIII, aka Lucien Pulvermacher. He used to issue encyclicals from the wilds of Montana. He had a particular obsession about the sinfulness of wasting money on useless animals. But he's been dead for years, so your hairy friends are safe.
"Pius XIII" actually lived in Springdale, WA--about 80 miles north of Spokane. Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord.
This is not going to end well. In fact, it has already ended. These sisters have not only gotten bad advice, they are stupid.
Can. 1256 Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership of goods belongs to that juridic person which has acquired them legitimately.
Can. 1257 §1. All temporal goods which belong to the universal Church, the Apostolic See, or other public juridic persons in the Church are ecclesiastical goods and are governed by the following canons and their own statutes.
Can. 1273 By virtue of his primacy of governance, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods.
This didn't happen overnight and shows a deep dysfunction in this community. As they say, the habit doesn't make the monk.
But if Pope Francis is right and different religions are just different "grammars" by which we all try to seek God, then the nuns going off and doing their own thing is just fine!
the infamous slippery slope
Which as absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.
I guess I am confused as to what you mean by things "not ending well" then? Do you mean that the nuns will end up excommunicated, and if so, that this will endanger their souls? That is how I interpreted it, but if being Catholic is to a certain degree optional, then I don't see how that ends badly for them. There are Anglican Carmelite nuns, and no one goes around worrying about their immortal souls.
I think you’re over reading Pope Francis’ Singapore comments. That different religions are “paths to God” seems to come close to a statement of fact. The historical religions mentioned by Pope Francis (Sikhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity) all acknowledge a singular, supernatural, transcendent, highest being, that which we might call God. Adherents of those religions thus can arrive at God.
This seems much like saying “philosophy is a path to God.” Human reason alone can get you to God, but such knowledge alone isn’t salvific necessarily (James 2:19). Something similar can be said about the historical religions. The statement, “all religions are paths to salvation” would be more concerning.
I guess the question is to what extent Texas courts will give weight to those articles of canon law. I suspect that if ever gets to that stage, the court may look unfavorably on a taking by the diocese.
I suspect you are right. Court systems frequently take religious rules into account when making decisions in family/divorce court, or deciphering the understanding that people entering into a contract would have had, but they are not going to reject US property laws in favor of canon law.
The diocese has no authority to take the property of the monastery and I don't believe they have ever intended to. The courts tend to give weight to canon law and the constitutions of the monastery in regards to property, etc. I know of one bishop that tried to acquire the property of a monastery that was closing and the lawyer presented the Nuns constitution and that was it. The bishop didn't have a change.
The issue here isn't the civil law, it's juridical law. Not only are these nuns disobedient beyond understanding they have caused scandal. The Holy See has every right to suppress the monastery. Of course, it won't matter to these nuns.
I've known of cases in which a member of a religious community entered into a civil contract that was in direct violation of canon law (acting without the proper authority), and the community was stuck with it, because as far as the civil law was concerned, everything was above board.
I'm really confused. Why would two people who presumably are on the more permissive side of the current discussions of faith side with the Sisters, who are enlisting the help of those who have decidedly less permissive views of how the Church should operate (the Society)? Is this just a spite thing? "The Pope won't agree with me, so I'll back anyone challenging the Pope, even if they totally disagree with me?"
What a weird, weird story.
Abuser priests celebrating “Mass” for the sisters and others living at Gozaga suggest a gambit by the lavender mafia to co-opt traditionalist impulses.
I get the Gonzaga president's involvement - his sister is the sub prioress. What is more interesting is the list of names on the new foundation board.
most of the rest seem to me like local businesspeople. who else strikes you as interesting on the list?
There are a couple that are big local names. And the Doskocil Family Foundation has been a supporter of diocesan needs and projects, including large projects for the only diocesan high school.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to apply here.
The bootleggers and the teetotallers teamed up during prohibition, to try to keep those laws on the books.
Aside from the family connections, these particular Jesuits sound like they would very much dislike bishop Olsen, as he has strong conservative tendencies. The monastery distrusts him because he has been overbearing and unjust to them (their own sins and errors in judgement notwithstanding).
Be cautious before making assertions. You do not know of what you write. Which "particular Jesuits"? President and Mrs. McCulloh are laypersons.
I was giving them honorary Jesuit-hood as being rather strong associates. You are correct that I am referring to the lay McCulloh's.
It's like someone wrote a Catholic mad-lib on a cursed piece of paper and it came to life Jumanji-style.
I commented months ago on the Pillar's coverage of this crazy story and asked why the wider Carmelite community across the USA had apparently not been invited to help sort out this mess.
On the basic Catholic principle of subsidiary , if a local community cannot help itself out of trouble, the Regional and then the National Superiors of that Order should lovingly intervene ASAP. They are the ones who, in theory, should best understand the charism of their Order. The Bishop should stand back.... Unless no one else intervenes.
But sadly things have spun so badly out of control that any outcome will probably reflect badly on the wider Church and likely damage vocations. The Pillar have done an amazing job of stuffing as many bizarre accusations as imaginable into one story.
Carmelite monasteries are autonomous by their very nature. While Francis has done some things to federate them -- and that comes into play in this story -- this is not like a rogue house of Franciscans, which belongs to a province and then an order. Monasteries of Carmelite nuns talk to each other, but there isn't (or hasn't been until Francis' changes) a hierarchy in the way that's true of many other religious.
My point about subsidiary still applies. The first intervention should come from fellow Carmelites who understand the spirituality of their order. Just as you would hope that siblings would be the first to notice and help a brother with a drink problem. A monastery may be autononomous to some extent, but it is not freelance.
sure. I was just providing some context, but i think your assessment is correct.
I refer to my reply to Bridget below on the legal oddity of Arlington. Seemingly you can have two "Carmelite" monasteries in the same State with different Constitutions and different authority structures above them. Not being a canon lawyer, this possibility had never occurred to me. No wonder that the other Carmelites, operatoring under the Semi-Province of St Terese, seem to have been reluctant to offer fraternal assistance to a monastery for which they had no judicial responsibility.
> the Regional and then the National Superiors of that Order should lovingly intervene ASAP.
That's not how it works for the type of constitutions this specific monastery has. It's necessary not only to understand the charism of the Order but also the mechanics of the rule. In any case you can see that they (the Arlington Carmel) would have and currently do reject any attempt at visitation.
> any outcome will probably reflect badly on the wider Church and likely damage vocations.
Women who are called to the Carmel in Fairfield will not care what rebels in Texas are doing (except to the extent that we all need to pray for them because it's very sad.)
Unfortunately it is a very obvious question for anyone called to a Carmelite vocation anywhere. What happens if the apparently very holy Superior of the convent I am entering goes off the rails at some later date?
Then don't re-elect her (she is not elected for life). In this case it seems that everyone has gone off the rails together.
Thanks for pointing out the oddity of the Arlington situation. After more digging, I think I may understand it better.
The Carmelites in Arlington may be autonomous to a limited extent, but they are plainly cannot be free floating. The following article explains why, for complex historical reasons, they are under the authority of the local bishop....but their immediate superior is the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome. This looks like the worst of all possible worlds. The Bishop is not a Carmelite and probably has limited knowledge of what goes on in a monastery and the Dicastery is 5,000 miles away.
https://wherepeteris.com/the-canonical-background-of-the-situation-of-the-arlington-carmel/
Another community of Discalced Carmelite Nuns in Texas are under the authority of the Semi-Province of St Terese. And that is part of the Province of St Terese. And the Provincial is Father Luis Joaquin Castenada. So two "Carmelite" monasteries in the same state have two different authority structures.
None of these "Provincial" structures seem to have been mentioned in the various reports, probably as they have no judicial authority over the Arlington community. What is meant by "authority"? I am guessing that Father Luis or a subordinate would, as an extreme measure, have power to take over a badly disordered monastery and close or reform it. But, unsurprisingly, no one in the Province seems to have wanted to get involved in this unholy Arlington mess for which they have no responsibility.
This stuff is making my head explode as I am not a lawyer. It is just, as a lifelong Catholic in a massively hierarchical religion, it used to be obvious that everyone, except the Holy Father, was answerable to someone for gross misbehaviour. Even if it was agony on stilts to boot him or her . Even Uncle Ted McCarrick eventually got booted.
As others have said, there are no regional or national superiors when it comes to Carmelite nuns. That being said, I completely agree that a respected Carmelite figure (or several) should have been called in at the very beginning of this fiasco to mediate between the nuns and the bishop. However, Olsen decided that, instead of stepping back and allowing such a mediation to take place, the thing to do was to phone Rome and get himself put in charge of the whole thing, which just escalated things into a death spiral.
This will get resolved when the questionable Bishop who set off this whole mess (and a few others) leaves office, and not before. Meanwhile, I'm not concerned about the involvement of some Jesuit in an edgy situation, because that's what Jesuits do. (I realize the man in this case is not an actual Jesuit, but as the University he manages is Jesuit, he's Jesuit by association.)
Referring to Desmond Tutu as an "archbishop" out-and-out in an unqualified sense seems to be an interesting choice stylistically in light of Apostolicae Curae...
yeah, valid. thank you for the reminder.
This shows that when you stray from the Catholic Church and become schismatic, you do so completely, to the point that you ally with even people with heretical beliefs, like the ones from Gonzaga. Reminds me of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in St. Louis where a group of Polish Catholics, an ethnic group known for sticking to Catholic traditions even when nearly the rest of Catholics in the U.S. lost theirs, decided to remove their parish from diocesan jurisdiction and won their case in court. The only Polish priest they could find who would participate in their schism was one who was thrown out of seminary in Poland for homosexuality and was ordained by a liberal bishop in Jefferson City, Missouri. He came in, started inviting drag queens and all sorts of wacky stuff and the parish was a lot worse than if it had just obeyed the bishop. That is how the devil gets us and people like Archbishop Vigano: it starts out with a legitimate complaint and maybe even injustice from the Church, but disobedience for legitimate authority leads to worsening schism and will lead to perdition for the sisters and all those actively supporting them if they do not repent. They should look at the good example of Father Frank Phillips, wonderful founder of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, one of the most amazingly wonderful religious orders in the world. He was falsely accused by Cardinal Cupich of sexual crimes which were completely proven wrong by an investigation of the Resurrectionist order he was still a member of. He therefore has no canonical restrictions anywhere in the world except in the Archdiocese of Chicago, from the arguably most vindictive and unjust bishop in the world, Cardinal Cupich. For the good of the society he founded, which run 2 thriving parishes in Chicago and one in Sprigfield, Illinois, Father Phillips quietly resigned from leading it and the Canons elected a new leader, who has to now deal with arrogant Cupich who would love to shut the Canons down if they were not so popular in Chicago, including among prominent Church donors, but Cupich cannot trick them into disobedience so he
can have his wish of destroying them. Obedience even to bad bishops in legitimate matters is the only choice for a Catholic.
Yes. The enemy proposes a sort of "trolley problem": *if you don't disobey, terrible things will happen! Look at all these things tied to the "what if I don't disobey" track! They will be run over by a freight train with no brakes!* The only winning move is not to play the trolley problem game; it is a temptation to anxiety, stop speculating about the future, instead call a temptation a temptation and reject it and choose to trust God. (We do need to count the cost of following God, as Jesus advises in the Gospels somewhere, in order not to build "The Four Story Mistake" or engage with an army when one should offer terms instead. But this is simple to estimate! The cost is EVERYTHING. This also is in the Gospels: treasure in field, pearl of great price.)
The enemy likes to twist the knife by leading us to become a grotesque caricature of ourselves, and the values we are willing to be disobedient in order to protect get twisted into absurd contradictions.
Cardinal Cupich did shut down the ICKSP headquarters in Chicago (for public Mass), over two years ago, by commanding them to lie.
Disobedience to bad bishops is also sometimes the only choice, and it still has consequences.
My favourite example is the Mariavite movement in Poland. They broke away from Rome around 1906 and, to start with, an outsider might have been baffled at their schism. They had a huge devotion to Our Lady and the Blessed Sacrament, they had very traditional looking priests and nuns. Why were they not Catholic? The Gnostic undercurrents soon emerged with "mystic marriages" between priests and nuns. And definitely not mystic pregnancies. They ended up as one of the Old Catholic Churches.
And their leader, Jan Kowalski, ended up dying at Dachau. Allegedly he wrote to Hitler advising him to embrace Mariavitism or lose the war. And the local Gestapo came calling.
This is the sort of story that could only happen in real life, it's too implausible to put into fiction.